SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2013
Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Importance of anesthesiologists' non-technical skills in the management of a case of life-threatening cardiac tamponade during robot-assisted thoracic surgery.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Automated assessment of simulated laparoscopic surgical skill performance using deep learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Anatomical terminology regarding anatomical variations needs to be refined: An example systematic review of extensor pollicis et indicis and extensor indicis et medii variations.Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science · 2025Article
- The application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in the assessment of basic robotic surgical skills.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Patient experiences of left-sided colorectal resection by robotic, conventional laparoscopic and open approaches: a qualitative study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Analysis of executional and procedural errors in dry-lab robotic surgery experiments.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022Article
- Non-technical skills in robotic surgery and impact on near-miss events: a multi-center study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Observational
- Measuring surgical safety during minimally invasive surgical procedures: a validation study.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Definition and Classification of Intraoperative Complications (CLASSIC): Delphi Study and Pilot Evaluation.World journal of surgery · 2015Article
- Reporting of adverse events in surgical trials: critical appraisal of current practice.World journal of surgery · 2015Article
- International consensus on safe techniques and error definitions in laparoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnical errors, a distinct subcomponent of surgical proficiency, have a significant impact on patient safety and clinical outcomes. To date, only a few studies have been designed to describe and evaluate these errors. This review was performed to assess technical errors described in laparoscopic surgery.
methodsA literature search of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and OVID databases (1946-2012, week 14) using the terms "technical/medical error," "technical skill," and "adverse event" in combination with the terms "laparoscopy/laparoscopic surgery" was conducted. English language peer review articles with a description of technical errors were included. Opinion papers, reviews, and articles not addressing laparoscopic surgery were excluded.
resultsThe search returned 2,282 articles. Application of the inclusion criteria reduced the number of articles to 21. Of these 21 articles, 14 (67 %) were observational studies, 3 (14 %) were randomized trials, 2 (10 %) were prospective interventional studies, and 2 (10 %) were retrospective analyses. Eight articles (38 %) applied error analysis as an approach to determine error rates within routine procedures. The remaining 13 articles (62 %) used the assessment of errors to describe and quantify surgical skill in an educational setting.
conclusionsA number of approaches for the assessment of surgical technical errors exist. The error definitions vary greatly, making a comparison of error rates between groups impossible. Complexity of scale design and subjectivity in ratings have resulted in limited use of these scores outside the experimental setting. To facilitate error analysis as a self-assessment method of continuous learning and quality control, further research and better tools are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23436086What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.